Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), placing the burden on the description. The description adds context about immutability after approval but does not disclose other behaviors like overwriting behavior, authorization needs, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loading the key purpose. However, it could be more helpful by briefly mentioning the parameters, but it remains efficient and focused.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 0% schema coverage and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain which fields can be updated (though inferable from schema), nor does it clarify the output despite an output schema existing. More context is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds no information about the parameters beyond what is in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to explain that 'body' and 'title' are the editable fields or that 'document_id' is required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Edit an unapproved proposal/SOW revision', specifying the action (edit) and resource (unapproved revision). It also adds a constraint ('approved revisions are immutable'), which distinguishes this tool from similar tools like create or approve.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by noting that only unapproved revisions can be edited, but it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. However, the sibling tool list includes 'create_consulting_document_revision' and 'approve_consulting_document_revision', offering implicit guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.